Leading a Lean Conversion: Lessons from Experience at ...seven characteristics of leadership that dis-tinguish successful projects. The seven lead-ership characteristics are: accountability,

28Target Volume 17, Number 3

example, a family of storage bins or cabi-nets, a particular model of high performancetask chairs, a line of laminate-topped worksurfaces, or a family of workstation spacedivision panels. Some product lines arehighly vertically integrated from coil steelthrough final assembly. Others include manypurchased parts.

Value streams are led by a superintend-ent and range in size from about 75 to 250people, with one first line supervisor for every30 or so production people and a team leaderfor every seven to 12 people. Each plant hasa lean core team of people from operationstechnical support departments. Each leanconversion project is led by an implementa-tion team of the value stream superintendent,a supervisor from the area (each backfilledfor the design phase of the project), one ortwo team leaders, and several operators fromthe area.

The corporate lean support teamincludes three internal technical consultantsand two members specializing in culturalchange. The corporate team develops train-ing and support materials and provides on-site consulting support for project teams andlean operations. We get external supportfrom the TWI Network, a group of Toyota-trained experts in lean manufacturing.

Leadership DifferentiatesOur lean conversions have initially pro-

duced uneven results. As project results

Successful mass-to-lean conversionsturn primarily on the quality of localline leadership — that’s the lesson

Steelcase is learning as it converts its 12main North American plants from mass tolean production. Case study material from17 mass-to-lean projects in ten Steelcaseplants over the past four years illustrates thislesson. We’ve learned there are seven keyattributes of leaders in successful lean imple-mentations and we’ve converted theselessons into practices and procedures to helpleaders be more effective in leading lean con-versions.

Company BackgroundSteelcase provides a classic example of

“brownfield” conversion. Our conventionalmanufacturing process relies on many sepa-rate work center schedules pushing lots ofinventory, and many expediters who fightthrough daily shortages to meet the produc-tion schedule. Value-added time is typically adecimal proportion of total cycle time. Ourlean conversions seek to cut cycle times byhalf or more, increase productivity by a thirdor more, and cut inventory by half or more byconverting batch and push to flow and pull.

We’ve approached lean by taking onone value stream at a time in a plant, withprojects going on in several plants at once.Steelcase produces office furniture and inte-rior architectural products on a make-to-order basis. A value stream might be, for

Leading a Lean Conversion:Lessons from Experience atSteelcase, Inc.Successful projects hinge on strong leadership.

David W. Mann, Ph.D.

29Third Quarter 2001

seven characteristics of leadership that dis-tinguish successful projects. The seven lead-ership characteristics are: accountability,project management orientation, lean think-ing, sense of ownership, tension betweentechnical and applied perspectives, commit-ment to cultural as well as technical change,and effective relations with support groups.Behind each of these dimensions are storiesof optimism overturned by events, intuitionswhich either proved out or not, some sur-prises, and an increasing focus on the crucialnature of the leader of the value stream.

Here’s what we’ve learned about lead-ership, and what we’ve done to convert theselessons to tools and practices for more effec-tive, successful lean projects.

Seven Leadership Success Factors

The dimensions of leadership we’veidentified are not cleanly independent fromone another. Rather, they are different facets

accumulated, we sought to identify thefactors that accounted for success so wecould develop a standardized approachbased on them. Our first cut in this analysisconsidered five broad factors: leadership,project staffing, technical design, shop floorculture, and line management ownership.The findings were striking: Strong leadershipcharacterized all the successful projects.Weak leadership scores characterized thedisappointing ones. No other factor yieldedsuch clear demarcation between success andsomething less than that.

There are lots of books on lean, andplenty of consulting expertise and experi-ence. We’ve taken advantage of both andhave learned much from each source. Whatemerges from practice is that nobody can tellyou how to implement lean in your organi-zation; unfortunately, there is no answersheet in the backs of those books or in con-sultants’ project plans. Rather, as in the linefrom the song: “You’ve got to suffer if youwant to sing the blues!” (Bromberg, 1977). Inother words, you earn success by experi-menting within your particular circum-stances, experiencing the consequences, andbuilding on them. (For a brief reminiscence ofyesteryear’s conversion experiences, see thebox, “We Called It World-Class Manufacturing.”)

Lean, after all, is more than anythingelse a set of principles. We’ve had to workour way through learning how those princi-ples apply to our processes, products, people,and culture. A key lesson we’ve learned is:The technical side of the conversions is actu-ally the easier part. Technical design is some-thing you can hire out, if you so choose.Changing the day-to-day habits by whichyour operation runs is an entirely differentmatter. Without these new habits, practices,and skills, lean layout and pull systemsquickly deteriorate. Nobody can establishnew daily procedures for you. Getting it donetakes tenacious, prepared, skillful leadership.

We’ve carefully reviewed projects com-pleted in the past four years, taking a closerlook at the ways in which leadership mani-fested itself, at what has worked, and whathasn’t. We’ve identified in observable terms

The findingswere striking:

Strong leadershipcharacterized all

the successfulprojects.

We Called It World-Class ManufacturingToday’s lean conversion follows earlier efforts to streamline Steelcaseoperations. In 1989, we called it World-Class Manufacturing (WCM).In these early efforts to implement the Toyota Production System’sprinciples under a different name, we looked for ways to involveemployees, eliminate waste, improve quality, focus on the value stream,etc. One reason why these efforts failed was we were emphasizing flowand reduced inventory, but at the same time we were paying employ-ees by the piece — rewarding people to build inventory!

There were other reasons. WCM was an optional effort thatplants could adopt or skip. It was presented as a smorgasbord; plantscould pick and choose various improvement techniques – hardly thesame as implementing a production system. Another roadblock wasthat we lacked a case for change; Steelcase was, as it remains today,the industry leader. We were comfortably profitable. It was almostunthinkable to many in the company that we needed to make dramaticchanges. And we lacked focus on the people side of change plus thediscipline needed to establish a different day-to-day culture. Wegained valuable lessons from our experience, learning the impor-tance of focus, implementation strategy, leader preparation, and theneed to support cultural change.


Figure 1 summarizes the dimensionsand the observable behaviors we’ve identi-fied and now look for in lean leaders.

Accountability

Accountability means making surepeople understand what has to be done andhow to do it, then making sure they execute.A simple three-part model sums this up well:knowledge, practice, and feedback. Thesuperintendents with the most successfulprojects applied this model once the equip-ment rearrangements and new materialflows were put in place. It is important tonote that line supervisors who are not on theproject team have been busy up until Mondaymorning running the old production system.

of what we’ve found to make up effectivelean leadership practices. None of theseattributes by itself is sufficient for a success-ful implementation. We’ve found in our mostsuccessful projects that these dimensionsbalance and complement each other, makingthe whole more than the sum of the parts.

Our successful projects have dramati-cally shrunken floor space and inventorylevels. They’ve cut cycle times from weeks toless than a day. Most importantly, they havefollowed up on the flow interrupters theirnew lean layouts exposed, with the result ofproductivity increases of 20-30 percent in thefirst pass. There are benefits beyond thosefrom the first pass, and successful conversionprojects continue to pursue them.

Dimension Behavior• History of consistently producing good results – the “numbers”• Holds people accountable using a process for tracking and following up on repetitive commit-

ments, takes corrective action when results fall short of goals.

• History of getting projects implemented effectively.• Holds people accountable using a process for tracking and following up project tasks, takes

corrective Action on late items• Logical, organized approach to complex problems, thinks situations through in clear, step by

step fashion.

• Understands and has already applied lean concepts; talks about, promotes, and uses lean ideas.

• Thinks and talks about the area as theirs to lead, set direction for, change, and improve.

• Understands the need to sweat the details as well as to get things done.• Willing to listen to technical experts and consider their advice in planning.

• History of effective give and take communication in the area — in large groups, small groups, and one-on-one.

• Trusted by people in the area.• Eager for and open to greater employee participation in day-to-day operations and

improvement activities.

• History of getting things done with support from operations support groups (such asengineering, quality, production control, safety, finance, HR).

1. Accountability

2. Project managementorientation

3. Lean thinking

4. Ownership

5. Tension betweenapplied and technical

6. Commitment to cultural as well astechnical change

7. Effective relations withsupport groups

Figure 1. Leadership Success Dimenesions


same kind as in the example above. Manytook weeks or months to complete. Unlikethe previous example, this superintendenthad no routine for following up and nosystem for even recording the assignmentshe’d made. It was not uncommon for thissuperintendent to be surprised and frustratedwhen he ran across instances where assign-ments hadn’t been carried out. He’d get madat the supervisors and chew them out, butthat was it. Simple items such as getting teaminformation boards in the area took half ayear to accomplish. In the first example,above, the same boards were designed, spec-ified, built, and in use within three weeks.

Mind you, both superintendents are infavor of the lean conversions and theimprovements to be made. The difference isthat one doesn’t follow up, doesn’t establishexpectations, nor hold people accountablefor meeting them. He allows technicalsupport staff to work in his area, and evenfrees supervisors’ time to focus on leanimprovement projects. The difference hereis between “letting” improvement happencompared to “making” it happen. Put anotherway, a major difference between these twoexamples is in practices for holding peopleaccountable for delivering.

Project Management Orientation

Project management orientation showsmost clearly in the design and physical imple-mentation phases of a lean conversion, whenthe work is basically a large-scale project.Accountability here involves making sureproject tasks are completed as specified andon time.

The complete project plan is essentiallya composite of a set of sub-projects. Exam-ples include calculating demand to arrive attake time, defining the pull system in variousparts of the operation, applying standardizedwork and line balancing tools to define thenumbers of stations and operators required,designing layouts, material replenishmentsystems, keeping all parties informed ofprogress, and the like. Simply put, manythings have to be accomplished in the rightsequence and on time.

They’ve had no significant opportunity topractice in the new system because it didn’texist yet. So, most supervisors need to learntheir jobs all over again. We’ve found thatconventional training is not the answer inthis situation.

Instead, we’ve found the most effectiveapproach is through real time, on the job, onthe floor coaching by the superintendent. Inour most successful projects, the superin-tendent holds a one-on-one review with eachsupervisor each quarter or more frequentlydepending on performance. In these reviews,expectations for performance on items froma list of 16 day-to-day lean practices (such asvisually displaying the standard worksequence at each station and monitoringadherence, maintaining hour by hour pro-duction tracking and reasons for misses,maintaining a visual daily information boardfor each team, visually recording and actingon team members’ improvement sugges-tions) are agreed to. New items go onto theactive list to monitor, joining previous itemsfrom the list that have been mastered.Weekly, the superintendent and supervisorspend an hour on the production floorengaged in inspection, feedback, and coach-ing. They cover the targeted items as well asexamining the new lean production process-es, seeing how they’re running, identifyingabnormalities, and discussing appropriatecorrective action. We call these tours gembawalks, after the Japanese term for, roughly,“where the action is” (Imai, 1997).

On the gemba walks, the superintend-ent takes the time to clarify expectations and,where needed, explain, or offer suggestionsor direction about how a particular taskmight be approached. Supervisors note itemsto be improved before the next week’s walk.In the most effective implementation, thesuperintendent virtually never misses theweekly review and instruction hour on thefloor with each supervisor, even if it has to berescheduled.

By contrast, in a project that hasdragged and dragged despite a high level oftechnical consulting support, the superin-tendent routinely made assignments of the

Weekly, the superintendentand supervisorspend an hour

on the productionfloor engaged in inspection,feedback, and

coaching.


same kind as in the example above. Manytook weeks or months to complete. Unlikethe previous example, this superintendenthad no routine for following up and nosystem for even recording the assignmentshe’d made. It was not uncommon for thissuperintendent to be surprised and frustratedwhen he ran across instances where assign-ments hadn’t been carried out. He’d get madat the supervisors and chew them out, butthat was it. Simple items such as getting teaminformation boards in the area took half ayear to accomplish. In the first example,above, the same boards were designed, spec-ified, built, and in use within three weeks.

Mind you, both superintendents are infavor of the lean conversions and theimprovements to be made. The difference isthat one doesn’t follow up, doesn’t establishexpectations, nor hold people accountablefor meeting them. He allows technicalsupport staff to work in his area, and evenfrees supervisors’ time to focus on leanimprovement projects. The difference hereis between “letting” improvement happencompared to “making” it happen. Put anotherway, a major difference between these twoexamples is in practices for holding peopleaccountable for delivering.

Project Management Orientation

Project management orientation showsmost clearly in the design and physical imple-mentation phases of a lean conversion, whenthe work is basically a large-scale project.Accountability here involves making sureproject tasks are completed as specified andon time.

The complete project plan is essentiallya composite of a set of sub-projects. Exam-ples include calculating demand to arrive attake time, defining the pull system in variousparts of the operation, applying standardizedwork and line balancing tools to define thenumbers of stations and operators required,designing layouts, material replenishmentsystems, keeping all parties informed ofprogress, and the like. Simply put, manythings have to be accomplished in the rightsequence and on time.

They’ve had no significant opportunity topractice in the new system because it didn’texist yet. So, most supervisors need to learntheir jobs all over again. We’ve found thatconventional training is not the answer inthis situation.

Instead, we’ve found the most effectiveapproach is through real time, on the job, onthe floor coaching by the superintendent. Inour most successful projects, the superin-tendent holds a one-on-one review with eachsupervisor each quarter or more frequentlydepending on performance. In these reviews,expectations for performance on items froma list of 16 day-to-day lean practices (such asvisually displaying the standard worksequence at each station and monitoringadherence, maintaining hour by hour pro-duction tracking and reasons for misses,maintaining a visual daily information boardfor each team, visually recording and actingon team members’ improvement sugges-tions) are agreed to. New items go onto theactive list to monitor, joining previous itemsfrom the list that have been mastered.Weekly, the superintendent and supervisorspend an hour on the production floorengaged in inspection, feedback, and coach-ing. They cover the targeted items as well asexamining the new lean production process-es, seeing how they’re running, identifyingabnormalities, and discussing appropriatecorrective action. We call these tours gembawalks, after the Japanese term for, roughly,“where the action is” (Imai, 1997).

On the gemba walks, the superintend-ent takes the time to clarify expectations and,where needed, explain, or offer suggestionsor direction about how a particular taskmight be approached. Supervisors note itemsto be improved before the next week’s walk.In the most effective implementation, thesuperintendent virtually never misses theweekly review and instruction hour on thefloor with each supervisor, even if it has to berescheduled.

By contrast, in a project that hasdragged and dragged despite a high level oftechnical consulting support, the superin-tendent routinely made assignments of the

Weekly, the superintendentand supervisorspend an hour

on the productionfloor engaged in inspection,feedback, and

coaching.


leaders had to be prodded by his technicalteam to even put together a list of items thatneeded follow-up. One of the plant supportstaff put together elaborate progress chartslisting these “to do” items, their due dates,and a color code for complete on time(green), at risk of going overdue (yellow),and behind schedule (red). The plantmanager, corporate consultants, and theplant project team attended weekly reviewmeetings to check status on these to doitems. The main product of these meetings,which soon trailed off and ceased, wereexcuses for why it had not been possible tomeet one or another date. In the end, virtuallynothing got done except those items dele-gated to the support staff member who puttogether the tracking system. Many items onthe list never were completed.

Without accountability and follow up,project plans and color codes are just ink onpaper. It takes committed, tenacious follow-up by leadership to convert ink to action.

Lean ThinkingIn a recent assessment of one of the

lean implementation projects, we asked thesuperintendent a standard question abouthis vision of a lean future for the area. Hestopped to think, then said that his visionwas an area with good housekeeping andthat was clean and well organized.

We asked the same question to thesuperintendent in a different area. He imme-diately started talking about rearranging iso-lated pieces of equipment into cells that runto kanban production signals, dramaticallyreducing quantities of inventory, establish-ing supermarkets and flow lanes for raw andpainted parts that allowed anyone to seewhat was on hand and what and how manyto make next, and replacing a series of build-complete benches and the setup activitiesthey required with a one-piece-flow progres-sive build line.

Granted, it takes more than a clear, spe-cific vision for a project to be successful, butwe’ve also found the old saying is also true:When you don’t know where you’re going,any road will take you there. One thing

The most effective implementationswe’ve experienced used direct, powerful,methods for maintaining accountability forproject tasks. The conventional approachesused Gantt charts and weekly project reviewmeetings. The most powerful and creativeapproach involved a six-foot by 12-footwhiteboard wall, a red string, and a dailystandup meeting. Running down one side ofthe wall were the calendar weeks in theproject schedule, with each week defining arow running acrOss the wall. Each sub-project name and its leader were written atthe top of the wall, defining the columns.Each sub-project’s weekly task was written inmarker week by week, a few weeks at a time.The red string running across the board gotmoved down to mark the current week.

The entire project team, including theimplementation team, met at the board everyday at 10 a.m. The plant manager and hisstaff met for a briefing at the project wallonce a week. At each meeting, all incom-plete tasks remaining above the red string(that is, late tasks) got talked about every dayuntil they were completed. These discussionsfocused on help needed, unanticipated inter-dependencies with other activities thatrequired support, resource conflicts, and thelike. Each Sub-project leader gave a statusreport at the 10 a.m. meeting once eachweek. Between meetings, the project leadermet with the sub-leaders to check on andwork on progress, task clarity, resourcedeployment, technical integration with therest of the project, and corrective actionwhere tasks had fallen behind schedule.

This project moved fast and with preci-sion. Everyone on the project knew and couldsee the status of all aspects of the projectevery day. Integration among aspects of theproject was clear. Resource deploymentcould be optimized daily; that is, wheresomeone in a temporarily slow period couldlend a hand in a part of the project thatneeded extra help to get through a roughspot. The atmosphere was open and sup-portive, so problems got surfaced as soon asthey arose, and could be worked on immediately.

By contrast, one of the least effective


tendents have been firmly engaged in theproject in the planning and developmentphase, and in the drive for continuing toexperiment, refine, and extend the applica-tion of lean principles following up onimplementation.

Not all superintendents with a strongsense of ownership had the other attributesneeded for the complete package. Butwithout an appetite to dig into an area, tobring it to a new level, the results have fallenfar short of what should have been accom-plished, and no follow-up work has beendone to eliminate the flow interruptersinevitably exposed in a lean conversion.

Tension Between Applied and Technical

Lean manufacturing is two thingsreflected in the two words: lean and manu-facturing. Lean by itself is a philosophy. Tograsp it requires study, the struggle to findunderstanding, putting it in, learning fromthe experience, then changing it so it worksbetter. One thing about lean is clear: Whenyou put it in, you lower the metaphorical“water level” and in doing so, expose “rocks”that interrupt flow. The lean journey is a cycleof progressively lowering the water, exposingand then eliminating the flow interrupters.

Manufacturing by itself is direct andurgent. When it’s time to make a decision ina manufacturing setting, the decision getsmade based on the best information availableat the time. If lean’s questions are philo-sophical ones about the best path for thejourney, the questions in manufacturing aregenerally more focused, like: What do I haveto do to meet today’s production schedule?What must I do to hit my cost target?

On a project design team, both thephilosophical and the practical need to bevigorously represented. In one dramatic case,a conversion project had been moving in fitsand starts caused by many interruptions byimmediate and pressing questions the planthad to address. But, once allowed to con-centrate on its task, the team began makingprogress. A number of upstream scheduleswere replaced by pull systems. Some equip-

leaders need to do is to lead, to be able topaint a clear and compelling picture of thefuture, what it will be like to be in it, the ben-efits it will bring compared with the present,and how to get there. This aspect of leader-ship is required to motivate people, to per-suade them to take the leap of faith that amajor change from mass to lean requires,and to help keep people’s eyes on the prize asthey slog through the inevitable snags thatcome with large scale change. In the fewcases where leaders haven’t had this kind ofvision, their projects have failed to makeprogress and they have had difficulty moti-vating people to believe in the possibility thata lean future just might be a better one.

OwnershipLeaders of effective projects demonstrate

a sense of proprietorship over their areas.Indeed, they think of their area as theirresponsibility — to set direction, to change, toimprove. These leaders tend to recruit tech-nical experts from inside or out to work onchanges, to try new things, to push the enve-lope of performance. We’ve also had theunfortunate experience of working with asuperintendent who never really engaged inthe project activity and was reluctant to giveup his day-to-day responsibilities to becomepart of the design process. Instead, thissuperintendent stood back from the project,as though waiting for the keys to be handedover to him once the design work, pullsystems, and equipment moves were com-plete and ready to run. In his previous fiveyears in the area he had made no processchanges but rather had simply concentratedon managing what was already in placewhen he moved in.

Fortunately, we’ve seen many examplesof a strong sense of ownership. We look forsome degree of competition between theplant lean team leader and the superintend-ent, at least initially, as a sign that the super-intendent sees the area as his or hers to makesomething of, change, and improve. As we’llsee in the next section, this tension needs tocome to a balanced resolution. In our mostsuccessful lean conversions, the superin-


refinish process was sized based on theassumed high yield. So were the areas setaside for the painted FIFO queue leading tothe stations on the progressive build line andfor the repair area adjacent to the end of theline.

The team met its deadline. Everythingthey had designed worked right off the bat.Everything, that is, but the paint line. Theyield was lower than expected — the lowestany plant had experienced. The equipmentvendor and our finishing technology grouphad teams working intensively on theprocess. Meanwhile, parts were being reject-ed at the line because of paint problems. Therefinish process was overwhelmed, buried inrejected parts. The repair area was flooded.Partially built units were everywhere waitingfor good parts. The area largely kept onschedule by working 60 hours for manyweeks in a row. Eventually, more space forpainted queue was added to be able to holdanother 12 hours worth of painted inventoryas safety stock. The new paint equipmenttook months to come up to a reasonableyield, but never reached the expectations theequipment supplier and we had planned on.

Someone on the project team needs toworry about the details, needs to exercise ahealthy skepticism, needs to insist that con-tingency plans be thought through. Convert-ing an operating production area to lean isdefinitely not a “just do it” proposition. It canbe done with speed, but it always must bedone with care, an understanding of thedetails, and a clear assessment of risks andrewards.

Commitment to Cultural as Well asTechnical Change

One of our most experienced lean teamleaders says that it’s only after you’ve“rearranged the furniture” with equipmentmoves, pull systems, and the like that you’reready to start working on lean. His point isthis: lean appears to be about layouts, mate-rial movement, visual signals, etc. What’s it’sreally about is a work culture based onprecise and disciplined execution of many,many day-to-day aspects of a production

ment moves were made to form cells runningto the new pull signals. The big task, referredto in an earlier section, was to convert froma bench build method in which the productwas completely assembled by one person ata workbench, to a progressive build line –an assembly line. The line was to replace thebenches and eliminate the need for somesetup positions. Most significantly, the queueof painted parts awaiting assembly was tobe cut from 36-plus hours to three hours. Thesingle schedule point was to be at paint lineloading. From there, everything was a first in,first out (FIFO) flow through paint applicationand unload, and assembly. All the parts aremade in house under the control of the valuestream superintendent. The product line wasmature so the forming and fabrication oper-ations involved in the production processwere well understood and relatively stable.The paint line, on the other hand, was newand just being installed. It used a recentlydeveloped powder paint technology — newto us and to the equipment supplier.

Just as the design work was to begin onconverting from bench to progressive build,the plant lean team leader was promoted toa new job at a different site. The lean team,and especially the lean team leader, an engi-neer, had been the technical conscience ofthe project. The lean team provided most ofthe analytical work for the project and did themodeling for alternative scenarios. Thesuperintendent leading the implementationteam was an ebullient individual, a bundle ofenergy full of enthusiasm and impatience tosee the project completed and running. Hehad a high level of tolerance for ambiguityand risk. When the lean team leader left, theplant decided not to replace him since theproject was about halfway done. Instead, theplant turned over all aspects of the project tothe superintendent.

From that point, the project was focusedprimarily on a deadline, which had beenestablished as an arbitrary date. The teammade the assumption that first pass yieldfrom the new paint line would be high, higherin fact than any of the several dozen otherpaint lines in the corporation. The off-line

On a projectdesign team, both thephilosophicaland the practical needto be vigorouslyrepresented.

Lean is paradoxical.

It’s easy tounderstand but difficult

to do.


tendent and supervisors are working from aset of 16 specific expectations and tools thatprovide clarity to floor leaders on what theyare to do to establish lean operations in theirnew lean layout.

The items in the set start with basic dis-cipline, like starting and stopping on time(what’s become known as working “buzzerto buzzer”) and maintaining 5S (unnecessarymaterial and equipment removed, everythingclean, everything in designated and markedlocations) in the area. They also cover thebasics of participation, such as holding teamstart-up meetings each shift at the teaminformation board and keeping the informa-tion on it up to date. Part of this process is animprovement suggestion card system withthe cards and progress on the suggestionsdisplayed on the team’s information board.Team leaders, supervisors, and the superin-tendent have targets for number of imple-mented suggestions per month. Anotherelement is something we call participativedesign, a simple structured method forinvolving those affected by a process, layout,or equipment change in a hands-on evalua-tion of a prototype or mock-up of the pro-posed change. (Technical details, likemonitoring standardized work and the statusof visual pull systems, also get attention.)

On the weekly gemba walks, the super-intendent follows up on these day-to-daypractices that taken together establish andmaintain a culture of responsibility, pride,participation, and contribution. In contrast, inthe area that only looked lean, operators indi-cate they feel uninformed and uninvolvedunless they happened to be one of the few ona project team. They haven’t been directlyinvolved and haven’t had an opportunity tobe exposed in any application-based depth tothe principles and rationale for leanapproaches. In general, they have a feeling ofhaving been “done to” even though their payhas benefited from the project-drivenimprovements in productivity. Many of themcringe at the mention of more change.

In the best implementation, operatorshave come to understand quite a bit aboutlean. They’re now practicing the lean day-to-

operation. Early on, our emphasis had beenon clarifying and documenting a technicalimplementation process and developing amethod (Mann, 2000) to prepare floor leadersto bring the people in their departments andon their teams with them through the technicalimplementation – rearranging the furniture.Simply put, that turns out to be but the firststep in a considerably longer journey to leanoperation and a lean culture.

Consider this contrast. One project hashad an unusually high level of ongoing tech-nical support from internal and external con-sultants. New layouts and material handlingprocesses have been put in place. Feederlines have replaced batch subassembly oper-ations. Bench build stations have beenreplaced by progressive lines.

In other words, there has been steadytechnical improvement. Unfortunately, it tooka long time to see any of the benefit from theimprovement, because the leaders in the area– the superintendent and supervisors – didn’trealize that these physical changes had to beaccompanied by the development of newhabits to make them function as designed.

Operators were allowed to build aheadin subassembly areas even when the com-ponents were not needed. The operatorswere keeping busy, so it seemed OK. Thespecified in-process queues were not moni-tored, so they’d vary between overflowing orempty. Operators were pulled off of flow linesby supervisors to chase parts, causing thelines to stop. Or, extra operators were putinto lines balanced to take time that werebacking up, throwing off the line’s balancewithout addressing the flow problem. Thesupervisors didn’t know what to do in a leanoperation, so they did what had been effec-tive in the mass production, batch and queueenvironments from which they came. Thesuperintendent didn’t know what to do,either. The result was that the area lookedlean, in terms of its layout, but it didn’toperate that way.

In our best implementation to date, thesuperintendent conducts gemba walks witheach supervisor each week, as noted in thediscussion of accountability. The superin-


most effective superintendents recognize thatlean means a new day in relationships acrossprofessional boundaries. These leaders havetaken affirmative stances toward includingsupport groups in their planning teams, lis-tening to their advice, and incorporating thesupport groups in the routine operation andmanagement of the area. Lean changeseveryone’s role, and it certainly changes whatthe support groups need to do for lean towork. The best leaders recognize thatchanges will be required of the supportgroups, too, and help them understand whattheir new roles entail and why they’re impor-tant for the entire enterprise to succeed.

Lessons Learned – And Applied

We’ve worked our way through manyconversion projects and, as those things go,have made many mistakes. Fortunately, eachproject has gone better than the ones beforeit. We’ve tried to learn from our experienceand to put in place measures to prevent whatwe’ve seen go awry. Here’s a list of some ofthe countermeasures we have routinelycome to use.1. Follow a roadmap. Though working

with external expert consultants has been helpful, they tend to introduce one step at a time. We’ve found a need to provide the “big picture,” or a com-plete model project plan. Plant teams want to know the major tasks they’ll need to tackle and in what order. And, significantly, the roadmap we’ve built – a detailed project plan in MS Project – intersperses the technical steps with the elements of cultural change and communication they drive. The techni-cal project provides the leverage for getting started on the cultural changes on which the long-term success of the activity depends. The corporate lean team assesses progress and completeness against the plan at periodic milestone reviews.

2. Readiness assessment. We’ve started doing readiness assessments with the superintendents whose areas are about to go through a lean conversion.

day routines without thinking much aboutthem, but it’s clear that the area runs moresmoothly, more predictably, and far more effi-ciently. (Improved efficiency is reflected in aproductivity bonus in each area’s pay plan.)Improvements in this area in the ten weeksprior to the time of this writing have resultedin productivity gains of over half a milliondollars in a workforce of about 150 people.These improvements have all come with theparticipation of the people involved in thechanged work, and they’re ready for more.

Effective Relations With SupportGroups

Many of our lean implementations haveinvolved changes to the flow of materialthrough the plants, the quantities of invento-ry on the floor or in storage, and the methodfor scheduling or signaling production. Theseare all part of the responsibility of the pro-duction and inventory control department(PIC). Call them “the Hatfields.”

The project team (call them “theMcCoys”) overwhelmingly representing man-ufacturing, designs the changes to theseprocesses in most projects. In the past, man-ufacturing would set up a kanban with PIC,but fail to execute according to its signals.Then, when manufacturing ran short of parts,it would blame PIC. The same is too-oftentrue between maintenance and manufactur-ing, in which when the equipment is runningit belongs to manufacturing, and when it’sbroken down it belongs to maintenance. Aneffectively functioning lean value streamrequires precise and disciplined execution ofthe pull system, and the pull system requiresregular adjustments and refinements basedon changes in mix and volume. An effective-ly functioning lean value stream requiresequipment ready on demand. In turn, thisentails regular preventive maintenance workby the skilled trades, and regular cleaning,inspection, lubrication, and routine adjust-ment by the operators.

Establishing new working relationshipswith groups where conflict across bound-aries has been the norm for many years is notan easy thing, and not without setbacks. The

In the bestimplementation,operators havecome to understand quite a bitabout lean.


expose all leaders to a detailed picture of what will be expected of them in the future. We also begin actively working at that time with the superintendent on his or her role in these expectations. That includes understanding these expectations, being able to teach and inspect for them, and in holding super-visors accountable for implementing them personally and through their team leaders at an appropriate pace both during and after the project phase.

5. Create a “change lead” on the project team. The change lead (see Mann, 2001) is a new, crucial position on the project team and later, working with newly converted lean areas. The change lead works with the project team to be sure technical progress (for example, prototype design of new workstations or detailed operation of kanban signal movements) is reviewed and critiqued by operators who will have to live with the new system. The change lead brings participative processes to the design phase of the project, for two reasons. The first is to get a better design through input from a broader range of people. The second is to begin giving people practice in participative methods where they have been absent or weak. After implemen-tation, the change lead coaches supervisors as they’re learning the new aspects of their jobs, especially the cultural elements. The change lead also conducts weekly gemba walks focused on the new cultural practices.

6. Begin gemba walking right away, and continue it. Leaders need to walk the processes on the floor to be sure that what was designed in the project phase is understood and being imple-mented as intended. The first gemba walks will be with the superintendent and a lean expert with the purpose of teaching the superintendent to “see” what is lean and what isn’t (Rother and Shook, 1998). Then, the superintendent begins to gemba walk every week with

The dimensions of the assessment are the same seven dimensions detailed in the leadership section of this article. An organizational psychologist and a quality system assessor jointly conduct a 90-minute interview with the super-intendent. We produce a report with a readiness profile (further from ready, closer to ready, ready) for each dimen-sion, specific recommendations, and detailed findings. We go over the report with the plant manager and the super-intendent. A summary profile goes to the manufacturing vice president. The idea is to identify the support needed to augment a superintendent’s skills and experiences so we can go into a project with everyone’s eyes open about the resources and support that will be needed for success.

3. Backfill leaders. This is a must-do first step in the initial phase of our model project plan. A lean conversion of an operating value stream is a big deal, not something to be done in one’s spare time. The value stream leader needs to be taken out of his or her day-to-day responsibilities in order to concentrate fully on the details of the conversion project. Not incidentally, the superintendent and a supervisor or two become deeply immersed in lean principles and their application during this process. They develop the under-standing they’ll need to operate and improve on the work of the projeCt team when the design phase is com-plete and the “project” has been implemented.

4. Set expectations in advance. We now have a clearer view of what it takes to operate a lean area day-to-day and what the main elements are of a participative, lean shop floor culture. We’ve documented these expectations and some tools to go with them. We go over this material in detail with all those in leadership positions in the area early in the design phase of conversion projects. We want to


out of the way, humanely but quickly. Don’t make it the superintendent’s job to find them a new home. That’s for someone else to do — the plant manager, HR, or whoever else. Move fast; people are watching, they know who’s working with the new system and who’s not, and they’ll be highly alert to failure to follow through. Your commitment will be judged by your actions, not by your words.

9. A note on consultants. I often hire a guide when I go fishing in a new area for the first time. It’s helpful to benefit from one with knowledge and experi-ence when in a new territory. The same is true for lean. Expert, experi-enced consultation is an essential ingredient in the mix as you’re pursu-ing a lean conversion. You can teach yourself, but it’s likely that your organi-zation won’t be that patient, plus you can easily avoid some mistakes based on others’ informed advice. (See Figure 2, “What Consultants Can and Can’t Do For You.”)

Using a consultant in lean is likefishing in another way, too. Folk wisdomholds that if you give a person a fish, youcan feed them for day, but if you can teachthem how to fish, they can feed themselvesfor a lifetime. In other words, lean is a do-it-yourself proposition. To make it work, youneed the knowledge gained from deepimmersion in the philosophy, principles, toolsand techniques and their application. Youneed to make some of your own mistakes,and you definitely need to make your owndecisions about how to implement. If youabdicate decision-making to your consult-ant, when you no longer can afford to keepthem available, you won’t have learned whatyou need to know in order maintain, sustain,and improve on the system.

SummaryLean is paradoxical. It’s easy to under-

stand but difficult to do. Most aspects of alean implementation are not technically com-plicated, but none of them is easy to imple-

each supervisor, as described in the leadership sections on accountability and cultural change earlier. The learn-ing model for lean quickly transitions from classroom and concept to something much more like an apprentice-master, in which the master first shows, then looks for understanding, then for proficiency on the part of the apprentice. Here, the superintendent must become the master, then the teacher. This is absolutely critical to establish and instill new habits and new skills. Don’t neglect it!

7. Gemba walk for cultural practices as well as technical ones. Don’t forget to inspect what you expect in the way of cultural practices. Be explicit about expectations for things like startup meetings, team information boards, suggestion systems and improvement plans, participative design to involve operators in virtually any change, sustaining 5S gains, and maintaining and extending visual controls. The superintendent’s gemba walks definitely include the new cultural practices. These walks are supplemented by ones conducted by the local change lead or corporate change management con-sultants in order to assess progress and provide feedback and, as needed, coaching to the superintendent.

8. Move low performers quickly. Most organizations have discipline processesto respond to those who won’t perform in a new system. Few have systems to respond to those who can’t, despite their best efforts. This is a policy area that’s important to support a takt time production environment. Most organi-zations have a difficult time removing supervisors and others from leadership positions who either can’t or won’t “get it,” understand what they need to do differently, and execute the new responsibilities. This is a fatal flaw and will stall progress and undermine commitment faster than anything. Develop a process to get those people

A lean conversion ofan operatingvalue stream isa big deal, notsomething to bedone in one’sspare time.


ment. Getting lean implemented is furthercompounded in a brownfield conversion if,like us, you’re committed in advance toworking with most of those already in placein leadership positions. Our leadership groupis about average. There are a few outstandingperformers for whom achieving a successfulconversion is well within their grasp. Thereare a few who simply aren’t up to the chal-lenge. The majority of our leaders are in themiddle. Until recently we have not had astringent process for selecting and promotingleaders in manufacturing, nor until recentlyhave we invested much in their professionaldevelopment.

Our challenge has been to deviseapproaches and tools to improve the oddsthat our average leaders will be able to leadabove-average lean conversion projects andthen go on to operate their new, lean areaswith above-average results. A key to thiseffort was to recognize leadership as thecentral factor predicting success and further,to recognize the dimensions that contributeto effective leadership.

We’ve elected to support and developthe leaders who have grown up with thecompany. Perhaps the most positive sign thatthis strategy is working is this: We don’t findourselves making the same mistakes overagain and we’re not making many new ones.Our record of completed projects is eveningout with a string of solid successes. We’vestayed on the learning curve long enough tohave built our own momentum. We haveconfidence it will carry us into a much leanerfuture.

Author’s note: This article represents the workand accumulated experience of the SteelcaseProduction System (SPS) office, which I’ve hadthe good fortune to be part of since its incep-tion. My colleagues have included Ken Knister,John Duba, Dave Rottiers, Al TenHor, LarryMcCrum, and Gina Wieczorek – all of Steel-case.

ReferencesBromberg, D., “Suffer to sing the blues,” Out of theBlues, Columbia Records, New York, 1977.

Imai, M., Gemba Kaizen, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1997.

Mann, D. W., “Why supervisors resist change andwhat you can do about it,” Journal for Quality and Par-ticipation, 23,3, 2000.Mann, D. W., “High participation communication inmanaging change,” Cincinnati: Association for Qualityand Participation Annual Conference Proceedings, 2001.

Rother, M. and J. Shook, Learning to See, Lean Enter-prise Institute, Brookline, MA 1998.

Rely on Consultants To: Rely on Internal Resources To:

Teach lean principles, techniques, Implement a new lean systemand how to “see”

Offer advice, critique, and Make the decisions regarding yoursuggestions lean system

Stretch your thinking Make the decisions regarding yourlean system

Provide “Ah-ha” insights and Create and maintain disciplined prods adherence to the system

Stimulate you to take action Sustain and continuously improve.

Figure 2.

What Consultants Can and Can’t Do For You

© 2001 AME® For information on reprints, contact:Association for Manufacturing Excellence380 West Palatine RoadWheeling, IL 60090-5863847/520-3282www.ame.org

David Mann, Ph.D. is responible for operations changemanagement, Steelcase, Inc.; he can be reached by e-mailat [email protected]. He is a presenter for the October8-11, 2001 AME Annual Conference in Raleigh-Durham, NC..

Documents

Leading a Lean Conversion: Lessons from Experience at ...seven characteristics of leadership that dis-tinguish successful projects. The seven lead-ership characteristics are: accountability,